MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022941456 · doi:10.2466/pr0.95.3.747-753

Legalized Gambling and Crime in Canada

2004· article· en· W2022941456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. Stephen Bridges, Celia Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Horse racingAdvertisingRace (biology)CriminologyPsychologyBusinessSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 10 provinces and 2 territories of Canada in 2000, but not in 1990, the total number of types of gambling activities was positively associated with rates of robbery (p<.05). Controls for other social variables did not eliminate these associations. With so many correlations in the present study the likelihood of a Type I error was quite large. Alpha was adjusted to control that likelihood. Statistical analysis now required even stronger evidence before concluding that there were significant relationships between crime and gambling variables or among gambling variables. In the 10 provinces of Canada in 1999/2000, the total numbers of electronic gambling machines for each province was associated with rates of theft over $5000 (p<.01). In 1990 there were positive associations found for burglary with off-track betting and race/sportsbooks; motor vehicle theft with off-track betting, and race/sportsbooks; rate of theft with casinos; quarter horse racing with thoroughbred racing. In 2000 there were positive associations for robbery with casinos and slot machines; casinos with slot machines; scratch tickets with raffles, break-open tickets, sports tickets, and charitable bingo; raffles with break-open tickets, sports tickets, and charitable bingo; break-open tickets with sports tickets; charitable bingo with break-open tickets and sports tickets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207